This subreddit is for both philosophical and political libertarians of all kinds including, but not limited to the various "types" listed below. It is in no way aligned with the Libertarian Party. /r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Please don't downvote comments. Especially because you disagree with a comment. No one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them. In this subreddit: One is zero, zero is negative. No one should be below zero unless it's pharma spam or something.

Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian. Read through those links if you want, but don't message us about it.

Report off topic pharma/revenue spam only, not trolling, or content or comments you disagree with.

Don't like the content? DON'T REPORT IT OR MESSAGE US ABOUT IT ... since we aren't going to tag it, remove it or ban anyone. Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you.

This needs to be upvoted for a bunch of reasons. Yes, it's interesting from a politic standpoint in that greenhouse gas emissions are dropping. But the economic and technological implications of this are quite staggering. We're witnessing a shift in energy sources that no one could have predicted 10 years ago may have been inevitable but may not have been well known outside of the petroleum industry (see comment by benjamindees). Natural gas is on track to replace coal as the largest source of energy for the US within 2 decades, probably less. That's crazy! The magnitude of the economic effects from this shift cannot be understated.

The ability of the free market to come up with a radical new fuel source, a way to extract it, and change the infrastructure of a multi-trillion dollar economy in just a span of 20-30 years should stagger the mind. If greenhouse gas emissions go down, that's great, assuming greenhouse gases are having negative effects on the environment. But that really isn't the story here. The story is that we are going to have a radical shift in how our very energy sources function--and the vast majority of people won't even have to know about it. They'll just go on living their lives, and their lives will change for the better without their even realizing it, without even having to know shale gas exists as a remote concept, without even having to know about introductory chemistry if they want!

Free markets really do have incredible benefits to bring to everyone, but we never even notice what they're doing, because it's just natural human interaction.

We're witnessing a shift in energy sources that no one could have predicted 10 years ago.

As someone who has worked in the oil industry, I can assure you that you are spectacularly wrong on this point. I'm not even particularly interested in petroleum engineering. I'm a software consultant. But even I could have predicted it, seven years ago at least. In fact, I came pretty close. I have no doubt that those more knowledgeable than I have known this for a long time. The most basic understanding of chemistry, economics, global warming and peak oil will eventually lead you to natural gas or, in my case, methanol as the likely future of energy. And that would have been the case regardless of whether we developed the means to extract another decade of profligate fossil fuel consumption via fracking or not.

The greenhouse gas emission effects of natural gas aren't even remotely surprising either. It's just basic chemistry. In fact, here's me pointing this out nearly three years ago.

Then I retract my statement, since I am not an expert in the petroleum industry. But I don't think it was uncommon for people not involved in the oil industry in 2000 to think that the replacement for coal and oil in the next century would have to be solar, hydro, wind, etc, and that there was no real alternative to that, since that's pretty much all you ever heard about. And hydrofracking was only first used in the late 90s, right? So, at least in non-industry circles, I think the rise of natural gas over the past 10 years was somewhat surprising. But hey, maybe it was just me and I'm slow.

Those are all great points, but we're up against the "Not in my backyard" mentality. I'm sitting on top of the Marcellus Shale right now. It's a pretty hot issue. Nobody trusts that the extraction method is safe, and I honestly can't blame them. We just don't know for sure that it is.

I honestly haven't formed an opinion on this issue, and that isn't like me...

It's a pity the companies have protection when they ruin a family's home. Mistakes will happen and need to be accepted to an extent, but the damaged families needs to made whole again. Without a willingness to hold the companies' feet to the fire, instead we get moratoriums on the entire industry harming progress and profit.

The landowners being paid where the extracting is going well are absolutely thrilled.

That's true. It's all still pretty new. And any extraction methods used today won't be nearly as efficient and low profile as what will exist in 20 years. But you'd have to figure the most remote and least intrusive areas would be sought after first, while extraction methods are still inefficient. But I have to admit I don't know a ton about the technology either. I should read up on the tech.

It's in the Northeast. Even the "rural" areas are somewhat populated. But yes, they're targeting farmland.. and I hear that they're paying these farmers pretty well. The last I heard New York State had a moratorium on extraction, but I'm not sure what the other states are doing.

Basically, the econuts are telling us it's the end of the world and the energy companies are telling us nothing could ever go wrong in a million years. So.. I dunno.

The shale itself is very porous rock (think of Swiss cheese) that's located beneath the water table. These bubbles in the rock are filled with natural gas, but traditional drilling techniques can't extract it, because the gas itself is isolated within these individual rock bubbles.

The solution is to drill vertically to reach the shale and then turn horizontally and run a pipe across the length of the rock. Water and "chemicals" (the chemicals themselves are undisclosed, because they are closely guarded industry secrets. Different companies presumably use different cocktails) are pumped down the pipe and into the shale at an extremely high pressure. The shale then fractures (hence the term 'hydrofracking'), freeing up the gas. The water and chemicals are sucked up and disposed of, and the gas is then extracted.

As I mentioned above, the problem is that the pipes have to go through the groundwater to reach the shale. These pipes, we're assured, will be heavily reinforced with concrete, and there will be other fail-safes, apparently.

The problem is that if something does go wrong, and these pipes do breach under the pressure of the fracking process, then those mysterious "chemicals" will poison the groundwater supply. This could potentially spread for miles around (depending how far a particular area of groundwater extends), so the risks are very real.

I suppose another concern is sinkholes, but I don't buy that line. The shale is way way wayy underground. I don't think a change in that layer of rock will affect the surface.

" Water and "chemicals" (the chemicals themselves are undisclosed, because they are closely guarded industry secrets. Different companies presumably use different cocktails) are pumped down the pipe and into the shale at an extremely high pressure. The shale then fractures (hence the term 'hydrofracking'), freeing up the gas. The water and chemicals are sucked up and disposed of, and the gas is then extracted."

Yes, this is my concern.

When profits or politics enter an argument, truth goes out the window.

I do not trust the companies involved to be safe with these undisclosed chemicals when they have $$ in their eyes, and I do not trust politicians to be truthful when they are busy being good team players. Keeping the chemical mix a secret leads to suspicion. Trade secret? Maybe. But when the consequences of misuse will affect non-participants in the activity, I think there is a justification for human society to demand open examination of the process and approval of it, before it damages someone or their property.

Really this depends on how it is handled. If we have an actual owner of the ground water, then they'll be pretty interested in making sure the water is not harmed, as that is a vital asset they own. It could be the local government who owns it, but a private owner is probably better. And if the fracking does cause damage to the water, the owner can sue for a lot of money. And that provides a huge disincentive for the fracking company to be careless. However, if the company works out some deal with the Federal government giving them immunity from lawsuits, then we have a serious intervention in the market. The full costs of the fracking are not being taken on by the company itself, but being pushed onto society at large through protection from the government. That's not ok, and would mean the company could lie all they wanted.

I don't know what the current setup is, but if fracking companies would have no owners to answer to if they contaminate the groundwater, then obviously they have nothing to lose and there's no reason we should trust them. But if we let the market hold them responsible for their actions, then I'm not worried about them being honest, because if they're not, they'll lose a lot of money.

But there is an actual owner of the groundwater, at least in some states. Some all water is owned by the state and you can get a tragedy of the commons problem going on.

But human nature being what it is, those with the most power and money will take advantage of that and screw over the rights holder they buy from. While granting authority to government can just concentrate power into a more easily corruptible place, if done right it can be a check against that kind of abuse. the problem is doing it right in the first place, and then keeping that way.

I do think we need to devolve the pollution laws down to a more local level, as they are essentially a property crime. A property owner should be able to call the local police about pollution and have it handled that way rather than begging some EPA bureaucrat to go after a corporation that contributes big $$ to the bureaucrats boss.

Obviously this isn't my favorite outcome, but state governments still care about their assets. And the political incentives to suing an oil company that polluted tons of ground water, as an attorney general are irresistible. If something did happen, I don't see any reason a state government wouldn't sue the company. And conversely, the company has huge incentives to avoid this situation, because they risk serious PR problems in the state where they wanted to work.

The fracking companies may want to screw people over, but as long as they aren't given immunity by the government, then they won't be able to screw anyone over without exposing themselves to serious risk.

Politics swings many ways. An AG may not pursue something done by a big contributor to his party, or only pursue it to end up with a slap on the wrist.

Devolving the pollution laws down to the local level, as a property crime, would give individual property owners more reason to report problems. They can just call 911. At the moment, who do they call? It aint ghostbusters.

Very true. So maybe if the state governments sold off the groundwater reservoir to someone that had a bigger stake in it; like the homeowners who draw from the water, or maybe sell it to a company that wants to run a water distribution system and then allow homeowners to buy their water directly from that company rather than from the municipal/state water supplier. It seems like there are ways to make this particular situation work, even if the larger concept of placing pollution responsibility with individual property owners is more difficult to achieve. Although I agree with you, it's an excellent idea.